Read v. McKeague
| Decision Date | 22 April 1925 |
| Citation | 147 N.E. 585,252 Mass. 162 |
| Parties | READ v. McKEAGUE et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Suffolk County; Dolan, Judge.
In the matter of the estate of Walter George Read, deceased. Petition by Muriel E. Read, administratrix, against May R. McKeague, to establish debt claimed to be due her from deceased, based on alleged written contract to make will in her favor. From a decree dismissing petition, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
C. S. Tilden, of Boston, for appellant.
G. W. Reed, of Boston, for appellee Warder.
H. L. Boutwell and F. A. Cross, both of Boston, for appellees McKeague and others.
Ira J. Williams, Jr., of Boston, for appellee O'Drain and another.
The petitioner, who is administratrix of the estate of Walter George Read, brings this petition under G. L. c. 197, § 6, to establish a debt claimed as due to her from the deceased, based upon an alleged contract in writing to make a will in her favor.
Walter George Read married the petitioner July 6, 1921, and lived with her until September 7, 1922, when he died, leaving no children. The petitioner relies for proof of the alleged contract in writing upon a letter written to her December 22, 1920, by the decedent, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
The case was heard upon motions to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that the writing was not sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, that it did not amount to a promise, and that the terms of the alleged agreement were too vague and ambiguous to be enforceable. At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner made an offer of proof which, he contends, would support the position that the intestate entered into an agreement with the petitioner to make a will in her favor, and would explain what he meant by the word ‘slice’ in his letter. He further contends that the offer was not intended by him to include all the testimony which he could produce at a hearing on the merits.
The judge of the probate court considered the petitioner's offer of proof and ruled that the letter was an expression of an intention to give property in the future and was not an agreement binding upon the writer; that the alleged contract was too vague and indefinite to be enforced; and also that there had been a material alteration in the letter, basing the latter ruling upon a statement made at the hearing by counsel for the petitioner. The court entered a decree dismissing the petition, from which the petitioner, after claiming exceptions to the rulings, appealed.
[1][2] If it be assumed that by the letter itself, taken in conjunction with such additional facts as the petitioner did or could offer, a contract to make a will could be proved-a question we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cygan v. Megathlin
...of the parties may be discovered, the nature and extent of their obligations ascertained, and their rights determined. Read v. McKeague, 252 Mass. 162, 147 N.E. 585; Thall v. Berkowitz, 265 Mass. 335, 163 N.E. 876; Geo. W. Wilcox, Inc. v. Shell Eastern Petroleum Products, Inc., 283 Mass. 38......
-
Finbury v. Architectural Heritage Foundation, Inc.
...Lucey v. Hero Int'l Corp., 361 Mass. 569, 574 (1972), citing Cygan v. Megathlin, 326 Mass. 732, 733-34 (1951), citing Read v. McKeague, 252 Mass. 162 (1925). That parties may have agreed to negotiate terms is not enough to give rise to an enforceable contract; "[a]n agreement to reach an ag......
-
Tweedie v. Sibley, 87-257
...v. Burbank, 163 Mass. 326, 328, 39 N.E. 1026 (1895). Young v. Young, 251 Mass. 218, 220-221, 146 N.E. 574 (1925). Read v. McKeague, 252 Mass. 162, 164, 147 N.E. 585 (1925). Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 362 Mass. 1, 7, 284 N.E.2d 238 (1972). Rowell v. Plymouth-Home Natl. Bank, 13 Mass.App.Ct.......
-
Mateza v. Walker
...contract to make a will must set forth all the material terms of the contract to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Read v. McKeaque, 252 Mass. 162, 164, 147 N.E. 585 (1925), Emery v. Burbank, 163 Mass. 326, 39 N.E. 1026 (1895). Defendant argues that the letter on which plaintiff relies fails t......